Jump to content
The Education Forum

HONEST ANSWERS ABOUT THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: A NEW LOOK AT THE JFK ASSASSINATION (2021)- 3/19/2021


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

It is. She also laughed like that when she was asked about CIA in another interview. She laughed and said she had never heard that before, something to that effect. 

Ruth Paine - YouTube

Ruth Paine 9/13/13 JFK assassination - YouTube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The files still convince me of the Paine's complicity.  They were collecting info on Cubans.  Stored in seven small files in their garage which were taken by the DPD on 11/22/63 to their offices.  Then Disappeared.

Detailed in multiple officers reports.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2021 at 4:58 PM, James DiEugenio said:

As per trying to insinuate that somehow Larry or David have ignored the Paines, not really?  In Larry's book SWHT, he uses the whole case of Buddy Walthers and those pesky file carriers, and he sources it well; Talbot writes several pages on the Paines in The Devil's Chessboard. 

I did not say Talbot ignored Ruth Paine. I said he does not think Ruth Paine was dishonest or CIA. "Ruth Paine ... was not ... a witting agent" (p. 535). Ruth's statement that she never had any contact with CIA "that I'm aware of", "is true, as far as it goes" (p. 536). "Ruth Paine was not an operative" (p. 537). Hostile to CIA and Dulles, Talbot is sympathetic to Ruth.

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked,  2010 2nd ed of 2006, says nothing at all negative concerning Ruth Paine. None of the mentions of Buddy Walthers involve file cabinets or Ruth Paine's garage or Ruth Paine--just isn't there.

In Larry Hancock's most recent Tipping Point (2021), in which after a lifetime of research he attempts to name names and reconstruct what might have happened in the runup to the assassination, Hancock suggests no role of Ruth Paine in the plot, says nothing at all negative or suspicious concerning Ruth Paine's character, in contrast to dozens upon dozens of named persons Larry Hancock believes are suspicious. So Larry Hancock 2010 and now 2021.

John Newman, probably unsurpassed in groundbreaking and formidable research on the CIA and Oswald, leaving practically no stone unturned in working through documents and evidence. John Newman says not one thing negative concerning Ruth Paine in Oswald and the CIA (2008). 

Clearly the reason these three top-tier researchers--Newman, Hancock, and Talbot--never disparage Ruth Paine is quite simply each of them encountered no evidence to support the outlandish things you continually assert of Ruth Paine with no disclosure or acknowledement on your part that what you allege is 100% suspicion and 0% confirmed evidence, in the form of document, witness testimony, or confession, i.e. evidence.

If there was credible evidence that Ruth Paine was sinister--why have not Newman, Talbot, and Hancock, with every intent in the world to pursue CIA machinations underlying a conspiracy in the assassination—the best researchers on earth in this area of inquiry--seen anything of the horrible things you assert as if you know them to be facts? The simple explanation is you deal with suspicion and scenario which simply have failed to be at all obvious to the top tier of researchers who deal with evidence.

In all this time, not one document or witness or confession has shown Ruth to have been a witting CIA asset or operative, to have committed a crime against anyone, or perjury in her testimony. No hard evidence, in all this time, in the year 2021, after all the document releases and intense scrutiny. Would it not be appropriate to show a little more humility concerning the status of your allegations? As in, "I personally suspect xyz, for reasons a,b,c, but I do not claim this is proven, or that it is certain, and certainly there is zero documentary evidence for this..."

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2021 at 8:04 PM, Vince Palamara said:

Interesting tidbits shared by Ruth Paine in the second link video of her speaking to a group on 9/13/2013.

Again, remarkably detailed about interactions with Lee and Marina "50 years" previous.

Yet, when asked previously ( the Gerry Spence questioning and other times ) she could not remember even the most basic details regards her visit with her sister ( where her sister lived, what she did for a living, whether they discussed Lee and Marina which I feel she did )  just months previous to her very detailed shared story of going to get Marina and her baby June in NO in October 1963?

Ruth did describe in detail staying two nights at the New Orleans apartment Lee and Marina were living in when she came for Marina in October, 1963.

She mentioned that Lee and Marina bickered a lot.

She mentioned that she and her own very young two kids had to sleep on the floor. And how cockroaches were crawling about and she had to spray roach killer in a wide circle around where she and her children were sleeping on the floor. 

Ruth said she was appalled at late pregnancy Marina's neglectful situation in NO. She mentioned Marina didn't qualify for local government medical care assistance because she and Lee hadn't lived in NO Parish long enough to qualify.

She also mentioned Lee was packed up and ready to go ( someplace ) to go on another "job hunting" excursion? But she didn't know where?

Lee was leaving the apartment immediately after Ruth and Marina left to go back to Ruth's home in Irving?  

I'm sure many know where Oswald went after they left? Did he come to Dallas on the bus right after?

Also, in this talking event video, when asked again about the draft of a letter Lee had typed up on her typewriter and left next to it for Ruth to easily see, find and read  ( while Lee was staying at Ruth's one weekend after he came to Dallas and was visiting Marina and baby Junie there ) Ruth mentioned again her outrage that Lee would have the "GALL" to use her typewriter without asking her permission. ( fact check correction after reading Ruth actual testimony.) *See insertion below.

Ruth Paine has mentioned this specific incident many times over the years with noticeably animated emotional upsetness. It really got to her and just added to her personal dislike of Lee Oswald.

And Ruth expressed she was as perplexed as anyone as to why super secretive and private Lee would leave the actual draft next to her typewriter and do such a private personal matter exposing and self risky thing.

Ruth didn't keep the very personal private matter letter draft private.

No, instead she made a copy of the draft and handed this copy over to agent Hosty.

RP did slip the original draft letter back to it's place next to the typewriter. One must assume Oswald saw this and retrieved the letter later.

However, Ruth must have known how damaging that letter draft would be for Lee once the FBI got hold of it.

Why give it to the FBI?

Ruth mentioned how upset she was that Lee had lied in the letter. With Lee stating the FBI no longer had any interest in his and Marina's personal affairs.

Ruth stated she knew this was not true.  Guess that was justification for her handing the draft to the FBI.

" Sunday morning I was the first one up. I took a closer look at this, a folded sheet of paper. . . . The first sentence arrested me because I knew it to be false. . . . I then proceeded to read the whole note, wondering, knowing this to be false, wondering why he was saying it. I was irritated to have him writing a falsehood on my typewriter, I may say, too. I felt I had some cause to look at it."

Mrs. Paine proceeded to read Oswald's private paper, a draft of a letter dealing in part with the visits of FBI Agent Hosty, in which Oswald said that Hosty had tried to coerce him to refrain from pro-Castro activities and to press Marina to "defect" and place herself under FBI protection. According to Mrs. Paine, that was a completely false version of Hosty's visits. She was offended on her own behalf. She read the letter in the quiet of her living room on Sunday morning and decided that she Mrs. Paine: . . . should have a copy to give to an FBI agent coming again, or to call. I was undecided what to do. Meantime I made a copy. . . . Jenner: But you did have the instinct to report this to the FBI? Mrs. Paine: Yes . . . and after having made it, while the shower was running, I am not used to subterfuge in any way, but then I put it back where it had been and it lay the rest of Sunday on my desk top. . . .

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2021 at 5:15 AM, Greg Doudna said:

 

I did not say Talbot ignored Ruth Paine.

 Ruth's statement that she never had any contact with CIA "that I'm aware of", "is true, as far as it goes" (p. 536). 

 

 

 

 

 

That answer by Ruth P. ( when asked if she had ever met or been in contact with anyone in the CIA )  "not that I am aware of" piques one's curiosity in the same vein as Oswald's "I am just a patsy" one.

To what degree of importance is debatable of course.

At first thought it seems a suspiciously ambiguous answer. Especially knowing about her sister's employment background. And who knows about her father, mother, husband Michael and his father?

Her answer could be innocently perceived. I could see myself saying something like her answer if I had been asked if I have ever met someone connected to the Mafia or the KKK. In 69 years, heck, I could have.

However, if she had simply stated "no" it would've felt more straight forward honest.

Ruth P was ( is ) a very intelligent and quite articulate person. And in almost every interview or public forum talk video I have seen of her, I notice she very often pauses before answering probing questions directly presented to her.

She thinks before she speaks. She is very cautious in this way. However, one would think even she would know an answer like "not that I am aware of" would kindle a little suspicion in regards to such an important question.

Definitely one suspicion point against her there.

"Not that I am aware of." How many times have we heard that guilty sounding escape clause answer in criminal hearings over the decades?

Like everything else related to so many JKF event characters we have conflicting stories and testimonies that make so many of them seem enigmatic.

Was Ruth Paine enigmatic enough to suspect? In some ways yes. Her family's background. Her husband Michael's family too. Her actions regards Lee Oswald's draft letter.

Regardless, one must admit that Ruth Paine gave Marina and her baby help way beyond any other efforts by anyone who came across them and their desperately poor situation. It truly was "Quaker" like in it's extreme generosity. Opening up her entire home like that. Paying for basic need items like groceries and diapers. Not asking for a penny from either Marina or Lee. Taking Marina to doctors, etc.

Before Ruth Paine, Marina was neglected in her personal health needs as well as her and baby June's living conditions.

Bad teeth. Marina was in pain with rotting and infected teeth. Remember her missing tooth in the famous "Marina, what do you do all day?" post assassination nationally broadcast TV interview?

Marina hadn't seen one doctor her entire pregnancy until Ruth got her back to Irving.

Living in a cockroach infested apartment.

Baby June was sleeping in a suitcase until George and Jeanne De Morhenschildts bought her a crib.

At one point, Marina was so depressed in her living situation before Ruth Paine, she made a half-hearted attempt at suicide. Which Lee chastised her for ( she had baby Junie to consider ) and maybe even slapped her for?

Whatever Ruth Paine may have been as far as political intrigue, one has to give her some humanitarian credit for taking Marina and Junie in when they so desperately needed a safe, secure, clean and basic needs providing living environment.

I have some suspicions about RP. Like most everyone I assume. Her sister and her relationship with her being one. The draft letter for another. Her and Michael Paine's "we both know who's responsible" phone call conversation immediately following the JFK assassination. Not knowing of or how Oswald's rifle was in their small garage? Minox cameras, files on leftists and Cubans etc..

I have more suspicion regards Michael Paine though. 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

When I worked in the Shareholder Relations department of a large company, part of my job was opening the mail. I regularly received letters addressed to the CEO. In 10/10 cases, these were letters written by crazy people.

Anyone with a bit of intellect knows you don't get through to the CEO when you send a letter to the company addressed to him/her. 

 

Not to go OT, but that was a former boss of mine.  He loved to rub my nose in it when two out of 100 letters to CEOs produced results.  He also made me write a letter to the actor James Franco, believing Franco would loan our company money because our boss was a misunderstood genius like the guy Franco played in The Room.  (There was a resemblance, but...)

Maybe we wrote to your CEO.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Not to go OT, but that was a former boss of mine.  He loved to rub my nose in it when two out of 100 letters to CEOs produced results.  He also made me write a letter to the actor James Franco, believing Franco would loan our company money because our boss was a misunderstood genius like the guy Franco played in The Room.  (There was a resemblance, but...)

Maybe we wrote to your CEO.

This was over a decade ago, and my memory is a bit hazy, but I remember very clearly one letter we received. This was about 2002. I opened the envelope, and pulled out a strip of paper that was inside of it. Written on the piece of paper in marker was "infowars.com"

Not knowing what it was, I visited the website.

Said to myself "they're still 10 for 10."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

ommunity would issue a public retraction and apology to Ruth, while she is still living, for all the unjust vilification which should never have happened.

Give it a rest, "friend" (I don't even know you LOL). That error in a very long book is insignificant to both the book as a whole and to my suspicions about the Paines. It makes 0.0 difference either way and played no part whatsoever in my assessment of the Paines, pro or con. Those two bums Nixon and Trump both visited CIA headquarters...many honorable people also served in the CIA...some visited CIA headquarters, some never did (just as many FBI informants never visited headquarters; many police informants never visited police headquarters...get it?). Whether Ruth or her sister visited the actual main CIA headquarters is irrelevant to the big-picture question(s) about the Paines. 

I know this game, as I have seen it played over and over again online for literally decades now (since the mid-1990's): someone points out an error (usually not a game-changer or significant to the overall article/book/program) and then smells "blood in the water", attempting to make a huge issue out of it and call into question other matters. I won't play that game with you, so any further pontifications or questions about this will go unanswered.

As the saying goes from the movie Frozen: "Let it go."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Vince.  Just wanted to say your on deck, up next.  25 pages to go in JFK vs Allen Dulles, Battleground Indonesia by Dr. Greg Poulgrain (plus the 15 page afterword by Jim DiEugenio).  I really want to read Larry Hancock's Tipping Point after reading the serialization on MF for the greater detail.  But, your book came out first, I bought it first (Larry's is on the way) and I have faith from your prior work and posts that it will be not only well worth my time but compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Hey Vince.  Just wanted to say your on deck, up next.  25 pages to go in JFK vs Allen Dulles, Battleground Indonesia by Dr. Greg Poulgrain (plus the 15 page afterword by Jim DiEugenio).  I really want to read Larry Hancock's Tipping Point after reading the serialization on MF for the greater detail.  But, your book came out first, I bought it first (Larry's is on the way) and I have faith from your prior work and posts that it will be not only well worth my time but compelling.

thanks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

In a just world, a certain someone and her husband would have done some time in prison for being [title of book by Sylvia Meagher].

DZ. Please excuse my naivety. 

What is the title of Sylvia Meagher's book? Which couple are you referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...